The 25 Words That Could Strip Away Maine’s Same-Sex Marriage
“Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?” That’s the language that will be put before voters if opponents can gather some 55,087 certified signatures. And if they do?
Then gay marriage won’t be coming to Maine. At least not yet.
The legislature’s passing of the law on May 6 means citizens should get their new rights within 90 days (that’s next month!). But if Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap receives enough “people’s veto” signatures, the law will be tabled until a state-wide election, where voters will decide the bill’s fate.
At least we’ll get to see some creative television ads?
If only a certain elected official would voice his support on the matter, especially since Maine voted for the guy.
Well at least this referendum is a statutory change to prevent enactment of a law, not a state constitutional amendment banning the practice like Prop 8.
Like California, the people of Maine will be voting to prevent marriages from happening, after the community thought they had won that right.
I give Maine a good chance at winning!
·
Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head.? Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities.? Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, “That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all.”? Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.? Stop gay apartheid.
·
The wording of that is very misleading. The law already provides for allowing religious groups to refuse to perform marriages. My guess is that the last part of the sentence is not what people object to. However, by adding the last part, “and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages”, it implies that this is the part of the law that will be changed. The sentence really should read, “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry?”, because the last part is irrelevant if same-sex couples cannot marry.
·
@MadProfessah: I hope so. I’m also still crossing my fingers for CA.
·
“If only a certain elected official would voice his support on the matter”
Yeah, right. The best we can hope for is that he might deign to make a joke about it.
·
@Laura:
Actually, I was wondering if including that language (which they probably had to since it’s part of the law) might not help the repeal cause. It clearly shows that the argument that freedom of religion is influenced had been addressed. They’re reduced to the “it’s coming whether you like it or not” and “proselytizing kids” scare tactics…that should be plenty to work with.
·
We know damn well Obama won’t stick his neck out like that because he would lose considerable support from black pastors around the country and he needs them on his side to hold on to the black vote. They turn against him, he’s done.
·
Isn’t this the same no-for-yes framing people objected to in Proposition 8? Rather than “Should the new law that allows [...] pass?” or “… be accepted?” or whatever, where saying yes to marriage equality and yes to the measure are the same, this says “Do you want to reject…?”, which requires a negative answer for the positive result. This sort of framing often confuses people.
·
A question and a comment.
Would obtaining and publishing the names and home addresses of all those who sign the People’s Veto, which is legal through the Freedom of Information Act, constitute bullying, or would it merely amplify the public statement made by those who sign.
The second clause in the veto question is informative as to the mitigating nature of the legislation in question. People who might reject the right to same-sex marriage on religious grounds might accept that a satisfactory provision has been made for conscientious objectors, but only to the extent of refusing to perform the ceremony or provide a venue, and not to a bigoted wedding services provider, such as a limousine company, caterer or florist. Refusal to sell flowers to a gay couple would constitute a violation under existing anti-discrimination law.
·
Just fyi, the law wouldn’t take effect until mid-september. If you read Maine’s Constitution, laws take effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns, unless otherwise denoted.
·
Why would he voice his support if he doesn’t support it? This is no news. He supports unions but not marriages.